[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Antenna Restrictions in Texas

Unfortunately, the wording in the FCC's response to the ARRL petition is
called "dicta" by the lawyers. This carries no official status and can't be
used to overturn what the judge has done. Luckily in this case the judge
overstepped his authority in his ruling because the Superior Court is only
permitted to overturn the ZBA if the judge finds that there was wrongful
conduct by the ZBA. In my case, the judge has overturned the ZBA on an
interpretation of what constitutes customary and habitual. The judge found
that because there were no other installations like it in a residential
neighborhood in Hudson, it was rare and therefore not customary. The judge
has been quoted as saying that "three towers are too many", even though the
current ordinance allows 3 towers on any property that is over 3 acres in

I'm trying to go through the process to get a permit under the current
ordinance, but the current ordinance has a height restriction the old
ordinance didn't have. I'm trying to get around that, along with an appeal
to the state Supreme Court. This one is going to be a story for QST when
it's all over.

73 to all, Jerry, K0TV

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Keane, K1MK <k1mk@arrl.net>
To: Jerry Muller <k0tv@gateway.net>
Date: Thursday, March 02, 2000 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Antenna Restrictions in Texas

>At 07:07 03/02/00 -0500, you wrote:
>>I just had a case where the judge decided that balancing of federal and
>>local interests consisted of ordering that all three of my 90 foot towers
>>my 6 acre wooded lot be taken down. Even though there are no aesthetic,
>>health, or safety questions, one of my neighbors complained, was shot down
>>by the Zoning Board, but the Superior Court in "Live free or die" New
>>Hampshire (with PRB-1 legislation in the state code) reversed the ZBA.
>>on the way to the State Supreme Court now. The town and I are on the same
>>Good Luck. IMHO the FCC needs to strengthen PRB-1. Apparently the
>>"balancing" now consists of removing all antennas.
>>Jerry, K0TV
>Hi Jerry,
>Good luck to you with the appeal. What a royal pain the butt!
>I assume that you & your attorney are aware of the FCC's recent comments on
>balancing of interests that appeared in DA 99-2569....
>  7. Petitioner further requests a clarification of PRB-1 that local
>  must not engage in balancing their enactments against the interest that
>the Federal
>  Government has in amateur radio, but rather must reasonably accommodate
>  communications.   We do not believe a clarification is necessary because
>the PRB-1
>  decision precisely stated the principle of "reasonable accommodation".
>In PRB-1,the        Commission stated: "Nevertheless, local regulations
>which involve placement, screening,
>  or height of antennas based on health, safety, or aesthetic
>considerations must be
>  crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to
>represent the minimum         practicable regulation to accomplish the
>local authority's legitimate purpose."
>  Given this express Commission language, it is clear  that a "balancing of
>  approach is not appropriate in this context.
>That does seem like a fairly clear statement, maybe clear enough for a
>New Hampshire justice to figure out ;-)
>73 & GL,
>Mike K1MK

Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org